This is using Shorewall 4.4.11.6.
I have an ''Internal'' TC configuration that prioritizes http
traffic
going out eth2 on port 80 over http going out the same interface on
port 3000. It works nicely.
I am trying to reproduce the same configuration using the Simple TC
mode.
This is a router unit with a http server sitting on eth1 and a client
on eth2. I apply TC on the traffic from the server going out eth2 to
reply to the laptop''s wget.
laptop <-> eth2 router eth1 <-> HTTP server
Here are the options from shorewall.conf I think would matter. I was
using MARK_IN_FORWARD_CHAIN=Yes for the ''Internal'' mode in
order to
replicate previous Shorewall 4.0.x behaviour, so I kept it for
''Simple''.
TC_ENABLED=Simple
TC_EXPERT=No
WIDE_TC_MARKS=No
CLEAR_TC=Yes
MARK_IN_FORWARD_CHAIN=Yes
FORWARD_CLEAR_MARK=No
First, I get an error when configuring tcinterfaces in the following
way (as per the tcinterfaces web page) :
tcinterfaces
#INTERFACE TYPE IN-BANDWIDTH OUT-BANDWIDTH
eth2 External - 100mbit
Checking /etc/shorewall/tcinterfaces...
ERROR: Invalid tcinterfaces entry (too many columns)
: /etc/shorewall/tcinterfaces (line 3)
So I simply declare the interface instead.
tcinterfaces
#INTERFACE TYPE IN-BANDWIDTH OUT-BANDWIDTH
eth2 External
And in tcpri I simply have:
#BAND PROTO PORT(S)
1 tcp 80
3 tcp 3000
Hopefully, these are destination ports! I also have tried with
''TCP''
in uppercase.
When shorewall is started succesfully, no ''child/parent''
classes are shown
when using: tc -s -d class show dev eth2
When doing two simultaneous wgets from the laptop, one on port 80 and
one on port 3000, the transfer rates ends up the same: eg. no traffic
control was applied.
You will find attached a shorewall dump made during the above test.
What could be missing to make Simple TC work ? Is declaring eth2 in
tcinterfaces enough ? Does tcpri know about eth2 ?
Many thanks for taking the time to look into this !
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WhatsUp Gold - Download Free Network Management Software
The most intuitive, comprehensive, and cost-effective network
management toolset available today. Delivers lowest initial
acquisition cost and overall TCO of any competing solution.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/whatsupgold-sd
On May 2, 2011, at 5:15 PM, lanas wrote:> This is using Shorewall 4.4.11.6. > > I have an ''Internal'' TC configuration that prioritizes http traffic > going out eth2 on port 80 over http going out the same interface on > port 3000. It works nicely. > > I am trying to reproduce the same configuration using the Simple TC > mode. > > This is a router unit with a http server sitting on eth1 and a client > on eth2. I apply TC on the traffic from the server going out eth2 to > reply to the laptop''s wget. > > laptop <-> eth2 router eth1 <-> HTTP server > > Here are the options from shorewall.conf I think would matter. I was > using MARK_IN_FORWARD_CHAIN=Yes for the ''Internal'' mode in order to > replicate previous Shorewall 4.0.x behaviour, so I kept it for ''Simple''. > > TC_ENABLED=Simple > TC_EXPERT=No > WIDE_TC_MARKS=No > CLEAR_TC=Yes > MARK_IN_FORWARD_CHAIN=Yes > FORWARD_CLEAR_MARK=No > > First, I get an error when configuring tcinterfaces in the following > way (as per the tcinterfaces web page) : > > tcinterfaces > #INTERFACE TYPE IN-BANDWIDTH OUT-BANDWIDTH > eth2 External - 100mbit >From ''man shorewall-tcinterfaces'': OUT-BANDWIDTH - [rate[:[burst][:[latency][:[peek][:[minburst]]]]]] Added in Shorewall 4.4.13. The terms are defined in tc-tbf(8). Note the ''Added in shorewall 4.4.13''. So you *can''t* reproduce your Internal configuration with a Simple one on 4.4.11. -Tom Tom Eastep \ When I die, I want to go like my Grandfather who Shoreline, \ died peacefully in his sleep. Not screaming like Washington, USA \ all of the passengers in his car http://shorewall.net \________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WhatsUp Gold - Download Free Network Management Software The most intuitive, comprehensive, and cost-effective network management toolset available today. Delivers lowest initial acquisition cost and overall TCO of any competing solution. http://p.sf.net/sfu/whatsupgold-sd
On Mon, 2 May 2011 19:10:03 -0700, Tom Eastep <teastep@shorewall.net> wrote : Hello,> Note the ''Added in shorewall 4.4.13''.Even when not including the OUT-BANDWIDTH in 4.4.11.6, is there a way with Simple TC to react on port types ? To have destination port 3000 given less priority than destination port 80 ? I have tried with 4.4.19.1 and the problem still remains. The laptop has two wget instances (ports 80 and 3000) fetching a 500MB file from the server: laptop <-> eth2 router eth1 <-> HTTP server The router has the following configuration (see also attached compressed sh_dump2) - this is now with 4.4.19.1: cat tcinterfaces #INTERFACE TYPE IN-BANDWIDTH OUT-BANDWIDTH eth2 External - 100mbit cat tcpri #BAND PROTO PORT(S) 1 TCP 80 3 TCP 3000 During the transfer: # tc -s -d class show dev eth2 class tbf 1:1 parent 1: leaf 101: class prio 101:1 parent 101: leaf 1011: Sent 548212535 bytes 362490 pkt (dropped 16, overlimits 0 requeues 33015) backlog 0b 23p requeues 33015 class prio 101:2 parent 101: leaf 1012: Sent 5978 bytes 41 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0) backlog 0b 0p requeues 0 class prio 101:3 parent 101: leaf 1013: Sent 548297607 bytes 362682 pkt (dropped 94, overlimits 0 requeues 10822) backlog 0b 121p requeues 10822 And the wget stats at the end of the transfers: 6.04 MB/s - for port 80 5.53 MB/s - for port 3000 Certainly, the dramatic difference as observed when using Internal TC is not seen (TC configuration dependent) but I''d expect to see some larger difference between bands 1 and 3 in Simple TC. Would that be actually the case - to actually notice a good difference between bands 1 and 3 in such a two-500MB file transfer test ? Or should there be more simultaneous traffic put through to exercize it more and see more noticeable results ? Thanks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WhatsUp Gold - Download Free Network Management Software The most intuitive, comprehensive, and cost-effective network management toolset available today. Delivers lowest initial acquisition cost and overall TCO of any competing solution. http://p.sf.net/sfu/whatsupgold-sd
On Tue, 3 May 2011 20:07:52 -0400, lanas <lanas@securenet.net> wrote :> Even when not including the OUT-BANDWIDTH in 4.4.11.6, is there a way > with Simple TC to react on port types ? To have destination port 3000 > given less priority than destination port 80 ? > > I have tried with 4.4.19.1 and the problem still remains. The laptop > has two wget instances (ports 80 and 3000) fetching a 500MB file from > the server: > > laptop <-> eth2 router eth1 <-> HTTP server > > The router has the following configuration (see also attached > compressed sh_dump2) - this is now with 4.4.19.1:Here is the shorewall dump. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WhatsUp Gold - Download Free Network Management Software The most intuitive, comprehensive, and cost-effective network management toolset available today. Delivers lowest initial acquisition cost and overall TCO of any competing solution. http://p.sf.net/sfu/whatsupgold-sd
On Tue, 3 May 2011 20:07:52 -0400, lanas <lanas@securenet.net> wrote :> I have tried with 4.4.19.1 and the problem still remains. The laptop > has two wget instances (ports 80 and 3000) fetching a 500MB file from > the server: > > laptop <-> eth2 router eth1 <-> HTTP serverI have found that if I put an OUT-BANDWIDTH in tcinterface which is low enough, then it is easier to observe if traffic control works, when only using two wget transfers as traffic load. Using Shorewall 4.4.19.1. So I have seen it work now. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WhatsUp Gold - Download Free Network Management Software The most intuitive, comprehensive, and cost-effective network management toolset available today. Delivers lowest initial acquisition cost and overall TCO of any competing solution. http://p.sf.net/sfu/whatsupgold-sd
Robert K Coffman Jr. -Info From Data Corp.
2011-May-06 00:46 UTC
Re: Trying to make Simple TC work - something''s missing
> I have found that if I put an OUT-BANDWIDTH in tcinterface which is low> enough, then it is easier to observe if traffic control works, I just caught this mid-thread, so if this isn''t relevant please ignore. I spent most of my time with traffic control fine tuning the outbound bandwidth parameter - trying to have it set just below the level that my outbound link could handle. As soon as I hit the magic number, the congestion on both inbound and outbound links cleared up. - Bob Coffman ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WhatsUp Gold - Download Free Network Management Software The most intuitive, comprehensive, and cost-effective network management toolset available today. Delivers lowest initial acquisition cost and overall TCO of any competing solution. http://p.sf.net/sfu/whatsupgold-sd
On May 5, 2011, at 5:46 PM, Robert K Coffman Jr. -Info From Data Corp. wrote:>> I have found that if I put an OUT-BANDWIDTH in tcinterface which is low >> enough, then it is easier to observe if traffic control works, > > I just caught this mid-thread, so if this isn''t relevant please ignore. > > I spent most of my time with traffic control fine tuning the outbound > bandwidth parameter - trying to have it set just below the level that my > outbound link could handle. As soon as I hit the magic number, the > congestion on both inbound and outbound links cleared up. >Thanks Bob. That indeed is the key. Same for IN-BANDWIDTH. -Tom Tom Eastep \ When I die, I want to go like my Grandfather who Shoreline, \ died peacefully in his sleep. Not screaming like Washington, USA \ all of the passengers in his car http://shorewall.net \________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WhatsUp Gold - Download Free Network Management Software The most intuitive, comprehensive, and cost-effective network management toolset available today. Delivers lowest initial acquisition cost and overall TCO of any competing solution. http://p.sf.net/sfu/whatsupgold-sd
On Thu, 05 May 2011 20:46:20 -0400, "Robert K Coffman Jr. -Info From Data Corp." <bcoffman@infofromdata.com> wrote :> I spent most of my time with traffic control fine tuning the outbound > bandwidth parameter - trying to have it set just below the level that > my outbound link could handle. As soon as I hit the magic number, > the congestion on both inbound and outbound links cleared up.Hello, and thanks for the comment. Can you shed some light on the actual process of finding that number ? Have you found some approach that would help in honing it perhaps in less time ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WhatsUp Gold - Download Free Network Management Software The most intuitive, comprehensive, and cost-effective network management toolset available today. Delivers lowest initial acquisition cost and overall TCO of any competing solution. http://p.sf.net/sfu/whatsupgold-sd